ORDER

1. This writ petition has been filed under Article 32 of the Constitution by the present petitioner claiming itself to be the registered Trust under the provisions of Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959. It has been established in the legal arena for the larger public interest. The Trust's motto is to challenge those provisions of law which are ultra virus and unconstitutional. Basically the petitioner has sought the review of the judgment by nine Judges' Bench of this Court in Advocate on Record Association v. Union of India & Ors. [JT 1993 (5) SC 479 : 1993 (4) SCC 441]; so also in the case of Special Reference No. 1 of 1998 (reported in [JT 1998 (7) SC 304]), whereby this Court declared the primacy of the collegium in the matter of appointment of the Judges of the Supreme Court and the High Courts.

2. As Mr. Rajiv Daiya, Chairman of the Trust appeared in person and was not able to render any assistance to the Court. Thus, we requested Mr. A.K. Ganguli, learned Senior counsel alongwith Mr. Bharat Sangal to assist the Court as amicus curiae. The petition raises large number of complicated issues. Meanwhile, we also sought assistance of the learned Attorney General for India.

3. Shri A.K. Ganguly, learned senior Advocate, has submitted:

3.1. That the method of appointment of a Supreme Court Judge is mentioned in Article 124(2) of the Constitution of India which states:

'Every Judge of the Supreme Court shall be appointed by the President by warrant under his hand and seal after consultation with such of the Judges of the Supreme Court and of the High Courts in the States as the President may deem necessary for the purpose and shall hold office until he attains the age of sixty five years.

Provided that in the case of appointment of a Judge other than the Chief Justice, the Chief Justice of India shall always be consulted.'

3.2. It may be noted that there is no mention:

(i) for any Collegium in Article 124(2).

(ii) The word used in Article 124(2) is `consultation', and not `concurrence.

(iii) The President of India while appointing a Supreme Court Judge can consult any Judge of the Supreme Court or even High Court as he deems necessary for the purpose, and is not bound to consult only the five senior-most Judges of the Supreme Court.

4. That by the judicial verdicts in the aforesaid two cases, Article 124(2) has been practically amended, although amendment to the Constitution can only be done by Parliament in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 368 of the Constitution of India.

5. That under Article 124(2) while appointing a Supreme Court Judge, the President of India has to consult the Chief Justice of India, but he may also consult any other Supreme Court Judge and not merely the four senior-most Judges. Also, the President of India can even consult a High Court Judge, whereas, according to the aforesaid two decisions the President of India cannot consult any Supreme Court Judge other than the four senior-most Judges of the Supreme Court, and he cannot consult any High Court Judge at all.

6. Shri Ganguli submits that the matter is required to be considered by a larger Bench as the petition raises the following issues of Constitutional importance:

(1) Whether the aforesaid two verdicts, viz. the 7-Judge Bench and 9-Judge Bench decisions of this Court referred to above really amount to amending Article 124(2) of the Constitution?

(2) Whether there is any `Collegium' system for appointing Supreme Court or High Court Judges in the Constitution?

(3) Whether the Constitution can be amended by a judicial verdict or it can only be amended by Parliament in accordance with Article 368?

(4) Whether the Constitutional scheme was that the Supreme Court and High Court Judges can be appointed by mutual discussions and mutual consensus between the judiciary and the executive; or whether the judiciary can alone appoint Judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts?

(5) Whether the word `consultation' in Article 224 means `concurrence'?

(6)